Man arrested at LAX for having guns.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The cops are neither lawyers, legislators, nor Department of Justice staff members. In LEO training they are given instructions regarding the law, outlining the circumstances when it is premissible to arrest a person (or not arrest a person). If the State issued faulty instructions, don't blame the cops.
Click to expand...

Poor training is indeed not the fault of the street officers. The responsibility goes to administrative and political levels; Los Angeles has an 'attitude problem'.

As I read California gun law posted by Librarian above:
It seems that the qualifier 'directly' appears in certain sections of gun law in California, and the Department of Justice advises that it also applies to other sections. This may or may not be true, depending upon prior court cases and other tests of the law.
Click to expand...
DOJ may so advise, but other court cases in CA have made the point I did earlier - when the legislature shows it knows how to write a law for a particular result in one part of the Penal Code, and it does not write a different part in the same way, a court is quite likely to conclude that the intended results in the second part were not supposed to be the same as in the first part.

In this case, the court's reasoning is likely (IMHO) to go 'if directly in one part has a kind of result, NOT using directly in a different place has a different result, and since the code shows the legislature knows the difference, the difference was intentional'.

Of course, very little is certain when it comes to California courts.
 
I totally agree but I have to admit I wonder about the origin of your username. Dr. Zinn is a notorios "collectivist" (i.e. communist) who slings an awful lot of BS. He's one of the very worst in fact. I just wondered if your name was somehow connected to that guy. I strongly doubt it based on your posts but it's hard to tell sometimes.
Click to expand...
I can only argue with your characterization of Howard Zinn by saying it should be stronger. I hate the fact that the one person with my name who's well-known is such an odious figure. My initials are D. R., hence the nick.

But I'd love to know if you're talking about something I've written that makes it "hard to tell" how I'd feel about someone like that or if you mean it in more general terms.
 
From .38 Special- "Again, the fellow apparently tried to illegally transport a weapon through a police checkpoint. Unless you are arguing that the police should not enforce laws that you don't like, you really don't have a point, unless you're simply trying to prove Godwin's law."

The man wasn't trying to do anything illegal or immoral. He was trying to pick up a friend & go shooting. This situation is very analogous to being arrested for being black in a white neighborhood. Instead of criticizing this man, we should be offering him our support.

So what if the failure on the part of the police is due to training an/or ignorance. We don't excuse it, we educate and right a wrong
 
The last update has already been posted. He has been charged with illegally transporting an assault weapon. He intends to fight it. It was a small article around Pg 4 in the LA Times with a AP byline.

You will probably never see another follow up on this story. As most likely since the assault weapon was properly registered the charges will be dismissed after a few visits to court over the next few months. And the news services can't make a mountain out of it.

By then some other person will hit the news and this type of California bashing, government bashing, people bashing thread will start all over.

Nothing wrong with a "little rage against the machine" relieving every one's tension level until the next incident.
 
By then some other person will hit the news and this type of California bashing, government bashing...will start all over.
Click to expand...
So we should just ignore tyranny?
 
lol reach much?

"This situation is very analogous to being arrested for being black in a white neighborhood."

you gotta explain that one.... please
 
New Member



Join Date: 01-09-09
Posts: 5 I doubt he will get a "We'll let it go this time" in Cali Screw You. He's being charged with a Felony because in Cali Screw You if your the owner of an EVIL BLACK RIFLE you have to go from your home DIRECTLY to the range with no stops in between. I wish our government would do us all a favor and give that state back to Mexico!!!!

I dont. Heck I have even thrown the black rifle on the backseat and driven to the range or to my gun dealers, its not illegal to carry a rifle in your back seat its illegal to carry a loaded weapon or where ammunition can be easily reached for that weapon.
 
Simply because the man had firearms he had to be up to no good regardless of the fact he broke no laws. The popular culture has created the an image of gun owners as being unfit for society as they have others who they hate or fear. Gun owners receive the same treatment and attitude as blacks got from racists.

We are told we have no need for certain types of firearms- Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles, Assault Shotguns, Assault Pistols, Saturday Night Specials, Rifles, Shotguns and Handguns with no Sporting Purpose, firearms with High Capacity Magazines, Pistol Grips, Bayonet Lugs, Flash Suppressors. It is said that only those with serious flaws in their nature would defend any and all of the above. It is said gun owners are unfit to decide what is an acceptable feature. We must ask permission to exercise our rights. We face oppression.

The rights of blacks were broken down in such a manner to oppress them. Separate But Equal facilities, being arrested for being in the white part of town for no other reason than being black, not being allowed to buy houses in certain parts of town, being denied the right to keep and bear arms because they were BLACK, denied the right to vote, among a few. Blacks were categorized as having serious flaws in their nature and had to ask for permission to exercise their rights.

Examine close the oppression of our rights. You'll see how it's the same
 
in the world

i live in break the law and get caught you get charged. hows it work in yours?

then you either pay up or go to court and fight it
 
He did not break the law (see my previous posts) there is nothing in the law that says he cannot stop while on the way to the range with his properly registered assault weapon. If there is another law you are aware of that he broke please inform us what it was?
 
thats what the court part is for. with a lil luck he'll set precedent but since hes trying the "they didn't tell me defense" don't hold your breath
 
The limitation doesn't quite say that. It's 12285(c).

Quote:
(c) A person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a
.50 BMG rifle under this section may possess it only under any of
the following conditions unless a permit allowing additional uses is
first obtained under Section 12286:
(1) At that person's residence, place of business, or other
property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with
the owner's express permission.
(2) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private
club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing
shooting at targets.
(3) While on a target range that holds a regulatory or business
license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range.
(4) While on the premises of a shooting club which is licensed
pursuant to the Fish and Game Code.
(5) While attending any exhibition, display, or educational
project which is about firearms and which is sponsored by, conducted
under the auspices of, or approved by a law enforcement agency or a
nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or
promotes education about, firearms.
(6) While on publicly owned land if the possession and use of a
firearm described in Section 12276, 12276.1, 12276.5, or 12278, is
specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.
(7) While transporting the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle between
any of the places mentioned in this subdivision, or to any licensed
gun dealer, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12290, for
servicing or repair pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12290, if
the assault weapon is transported as required by Section 12026.1.
What's missing is any language specifying 'directly' to those places; the Legislature knows how to say that; see, for example, this snippet of PC 12026.2
Quote:
(4) The transportation of a firearm by a person listed in Section
12026 directly between any of the places mentioned in Section 12026.

this part will be clarified one way or the other if he pursues it
 
The Real reason he was arrested?

"The man, who did not have any gun on his person, was arrested for investigation of weapons transportation violations, Castles said. The man's name was not immediately released.

The scene was observed by a KCAL-TV news helicopter overhead."

One newspaper account said that they had also this year stopped one man with 2 unloaded shotguns in his trunk and a worker at the airport who had an old .22 rifle in his trunk.

All of this was at "vehicle inspection points".
 
in the world i live in break the law and get caught you get charged. hows it work in yours?

then you either pay up or go to court and fight it
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, we get it. If you break the law they'll arrest you. As I've tried to explain to you in the past, we're not arguing how it is, we're arguing how it should be. Droning on and on about "the law" is irrelevant to the question at hand.
 
The man wasn't trying to do anything illegal or immoral.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what he was "trying" to do. It's what he actually did. As has been repeatedly pointed out, he allegedly transported a firearm illegally. I hope he didn't. I hope he gets off scott free, and I hope his experience clarifies the law so that other people don't suffer the same fate. In fact, I hope this episode casts some light on a foolish law and gets Californians "up in arms", so to speak, about the law and getting it changed -- as unlikely as that is.

But the bottom line remains the same: the gentleman was arrested for allegedly breaking the law. Period, Q.E.D., end of story.
 
Yeah, yeah, we get it. If you break the law they'll arrest you. As I've tried to explain to you in the past, we're not arguing how it is, we're arguing how it should be. Droning on and on about "the law" is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Click to expand...

"Droning on and on" kind of defines discussion at THR. And if the question is "Should it be illegal to transport menacing-looking semi-automatic rifles near an airport?" then I don't think you're going to get much debate.
 
Again, I have not heard of these "vehicle inspection points". How can they search your car without probable cause? I was under the impression that the loop roads through LAX are public thoroughfares. Can they somehow just pull you over and search your car for no reason now?
 
Again, I have not heard of these "vehicle inspection points". How can they search your car without probable cause? I was under the impression that the loop roads through LAX are public thoroughfares. Can they somehow just pull you over and search your car for no reason now?
Click to expand...

There's a "border" checkpoint on the I-5, not really anywhere near the border. They can and will pull you over and go through your car anytime they feel like it. I don't for an instant see how that is constitutional, but then the constitution has not been a respected document during our lifetimes.
 
They can and will pull you over and go through your car anytime they feel like it.
Click to expand...
They can pull you over, but they can't go through your car without permission or PC. It was at the other BP checkpoint on the I-8 that I refused them permission. They brought out the drug dog and let him sniff around, and that was it.

Is this a serious question?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
I've gone through the loop road in the middle of the airport many times, and I have never seen any signs showing what you may or may not have. Furthermore, it is simply the end of the city street. Frankly, without any convoluted legal interpretation of the law, I would think that the loop road is a city street and not "inside" the airport. Inside the airport there are signs stating that you may not carry any weapons "beyond this point".

In short, I don't think that we should castigate the guy for having a gun in his car as though he had tried to carry it into a secured zone. The loop road is clearly not a secured zone.

Whether he broke a silly law by making a stop on his way to go shooting appears highly debatable.
Mauserguy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
college "related" shooting
Replies
5
Views
511
Autolycus
A
Back
Top